Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.04.13 SS18510111111W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION April 13, 1998 Special Study Session - 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER A special study session of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Key on April 13, 1998 at 6:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Key Absent: Commissioners Coffey, Mink and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY. Chair Key opened the meeting indicating that the members of the commission were going to discuss issues regarding to neighborhood compatibility as they relate to a recommendation to Council on the ending of the moratorium on second story additions and new construction of second stories; time for comments from the public on this matter would be provided at 6:45 p.m. since the regular commission meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m. Chair Key then turned the discussion over to C. Deal who had chaired the Subcommittee. He noted that the staff report included the basic questions to address along with the comparison chart of the two methods of design review that the commission has discussed: review by individual architects/designers or a design review committee. The discussion then followed the comparative chart. On selection of members, for either approach, it was noted that there is a permit streamlining limit of 60 days from acceptance of projects until the city is mandated to act; it will be difficult to get a panel of designers or committee of volunteers appointed by the Council in that time frame because of legal requirements for council selection; it was noted that the Planning Commission should submit their list of potential candidates to Council for review then appoint; interview panel could be made up of representatives of council and commission; commission could select and recommend for appointment to city council, think two year terms more appropriate than four year; positions should be revokable, with a panel that can be built into the contract, with committee Commission could built that into the charter i.e., removed with so many votes by the commission. CA Anderson pointed out that if individuals were advisory to commission, the regulations regarding selection process were different and shorter. -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13, 1998 Commissioner pointed out that his problem was with the concept of a design review committee. He noted that there was value in having the council make the appointments, commission should offer in the recommendation that the council should choose the way to appoint the review group and that the council should decide how long they serve and at whose pleasure. If you have as few as three, the number is small and you need a way to replace quickly if one disappears. The consensus was that the Council should decide who was to appoint the review body, the interim ordinance should be phrased to give the option that the Planning Commission could make the appointment for four months from the date of adoption. The next issue was fees. It was generally felt that the design review needed to have a fee associated with it no matter how it was done. Feel strongly that there should be interaction between the reviewer(s) and applicant; two choices presented both alright, problem with the individual reviewer having no interaction with the applicant; the panel of three allows interaction among the reviewers which can clarify what is needed and lead to a better determination; do fees proposed cover costs, CP Monroe noted, no, but are reasonable given current fees for other reviews and less than estimate of what will cost, fees will need to be evaluated as process is implemented; would like to see fees eventually based on an incentive, the better the plan, the less review needed the lower the fee; CA Anderson expressed a concern that the amount of review a given project may require, may not have to do with the quality of the design but the sensitivity of its location and the level of neighbor concern; so it might not be fair to base fees on the simplicity of the review needed; perhaps the financial reward is to the applicant who will have to pay his architect less if the design is good and his architect spends less time on resubmittals. Consensus was that the fees shown were all right and that fees should be evaluated during the first year of program implementation. Commissioner noted that a real problem is the short 35 day time period that commission has to work within. Have some experience with design review processes and spoke to several cities about how theirs work, relationships with staff and reviewers vary greatly and the issue is complicated, will not be able to get off the ground in 35 days. Objective is to get the Planning Commission out of the detail of design review and speed up meetings. Chair Key closed commission discussion at this point noting that this item would be continued to the end of the action items at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission which would start at 7:00 p.m. She then opened the floor to public comment on the design review issue. Martin Drelling, 1321 Paloma Avenue, spoke. He noted that he is an architect in Burlingame and an alternate on the San Mateo County design review board. That board is composed of two professionals and a neighborhood representative. Since the county is made up of several discrete neighborhoods, there is a different neighborhood representative for each neighborhood. The thing that makes the -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission April 13. 1998 design review effective is the one-on-one dialogue at the informal meeting. It is important to have the process be accessible to the public so they can see what is going on and what is important. The design group needs to vote. The design review has reduced bureaucracy because issues are resolved at the table, plans are marked and conditionally approved so the applicant can move on through the process. Ken Iberia, 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, architect; key that. people know that all second stories will be reviewed so that neighbors are not surprised when one happens, does not feel in Millbrae that there is a lot of input from the staff architect; cost in Millbrae is passed on to the property owners, they charge $1300 for design review; have had spooky experiences in South San Francisco with design review board, feel review is professionally critical. Thinks Burlingame has a good feel for what is good design, the problem is the large, over built projects. Need a special group to look at and get input from neighbors so mitigate these problem projects. Commissioner asked if he knew of an example of a DRB that worked well; no, not when design is focus, does bring project into the open. Have confidence in this city's planning commission, lots of experience, know what good design is; problem is vicious circle when designers criticize designers. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway, architect. If review is a single outside architect, pits one person against another and is a bad direction to go; each architect has his own theory of what works, if other does not agree then denies project; it is better to have several architects on a review board with no voting, this is the system used by the Mountain View DRB composed of two architects, one staff planner and an outside citizen. Look at plans in relation to things Planning Commission and city are interested in, working relationship at table; designer can incorporate things or not and then go to the Planning Commission; works better than other cities on the Peninsula. When the client pays for criticism set up for confrontation. Give people information at DRB and go to Planning Commission for decision. Kathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Drive, advocate architect's input but also important to have people who live in community on board, having a neighborhood representative would be good because each neighborhood has its own character; dream committee would have a liaison from the Planning Commission, an architect and a neighborhood representative. Have heard that in Millbrae there is a lot of in fighting among personalities on the board; but their design guidelines are not as specific as ours will be, they are not tailored by neighborhood. Feel that the preliminary work done so far is good. Like the subcommittee to the Planning Commission approach with the commission having the final authority; the people need to see fairness. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. C.Galligan moved to adjourn the special meeting to the end of the regular Planning Commission meeting which would convene immediately. C. Deal seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Coffey, Mink and Wellford absent). The Special Meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:09 p.m.